Skip to main content

Full text of "South Court rehabilitation : Department of the Treasury : guidelines for the revitalization and design of a library and garden in the south court of the historic Treasury Building in Washington, DC"

See other formats


South Court 
Rehabilitation 



Department OF 
THE Treasury 




guideunes for the 
Rehabilitation and Design 
OF A Library and Garden 
IN THE South Court of the 
Historic Treasury Building 
IN Washington, DC 



Contents 



The Mandate: 

Challenges and Opportunities 2 

Summary of Recommendations 4 

Givens and Conceptual Alternatives 7 

Site Constraints 7 

Spatial Options 8 

Tlie Solution: A Synthesis of Architecture, 

Landscape and Preservation 10 

Library Guidelines and Concepts 10 

Landscape Considerations 12 

Preservation Issues 14 

The Design Process 15 



Comments on the Budget 




and Phasing the Project 


17 


Appendices 


18 


Historical Background 


18 


The Charrette Agenda 


21 


Charrette Team Biographies 


22 


List of Participants 


24 



Cover: West facade of the 
historic Treasury Building. 



South Court 
Rehabilitation 



Department OF 
THE Treasury 



Guidelines for the 
Rehabilitation and Design 
OF A Library and Garden 
IN THE South Court of the 
Historic Treasury Building 
IN Washington, DC 



Report of the Design Charrette Team 
28-29 July 1992 

Prepared for the Department of the Treasury 

Prepared By 

Thomas Walton, Ph.D. 

School of Architecture 

The Catholic University of America 

With the Assistance of the 

Design Arts Program 

National Endowment for the Arts 



The Mandate: 

Challenges AND Opportunities 



The Department of the Treasury intends 
to rehabilitate the South Court of its historic 
Main Building to house a basement-level library 
and landscaped terrace. Funds to initiate this 
task were appropriated in 1990, and Treasury 
officials hope to develop complete schematic 
plans and finish the first phase of the courtyard 
construction in conjunction with an on-going 
roof replacement project. The result of this 
strategy should be significant savings of taxpayer 
dollars as it will permit a much more efficient 
use of the $200,000-a-year tower crane that is 
needed for both jobs. 

But more than construction dollars are 
at stake here. In his remarks introducing this 
undertaking, the Department's Assistant Secre- 
tar)' for Management David M. Nummy empha- 
sized another important consideration — steward- 
ship: "The Treasury Building is one of the most 
magnificent and historically important structures 
in the United States. From an architectural 
perspective, it is a privilege to work here and we 
take pride in how we maintain, indeed, are 
stewards of this great edifice." 

While a more complete summar)' of the 
development of the Treasury Building is part of 
Appendix A, it is essential to note that, after the 
White House and the Capitol, it is the third 
oldest existing federal government structure in 
Washington, DC. Its earliest wings, built of 
sandstone, were erected between 1836 and 1842 
according to the Greek Revival design of Robert 
Mills, one of this nation's premier architects 
(other Mills' commissions include the Washing- 
ton Monument and the Patent Office Building 
in Washington, DC). Perhaps, for the project at 



hand, the key issue in this history is that the 
South Court is the only place where it is possible 
to have an unobstructed view of the original 
Mills' facades. (The North Court contains a 
computer center and chilling tower and the 
exterior facades and later additions to the Trea- 
sury were all redone or constructed in granite.) 

A further challenge in the South Court 
rehabilitation is the fact that it is presently the 
site of a structure designed and used, from 1891 
to 1910, as the office and drafting room of the 
Supervising Architect. Hallmarks of this "pavil- 
ion" include its dramatic skylit roof trusses and 
the notion that its panel and steel framework 
construction were intended to make it "por- 
table." It originally was the home of up to 160 
architects, the first "firm" of this size in the 
world, whose architectural credits include the 
U.S. Mint in Philadelphia, the Post Office in 
Pueblo, Colorado, and the Custom House in 
New London, Connecticut. Now the structure is 
unoccupied and a safety hazard. In addition, 
significant interior alterations were made when it 
was used as an employee cafeteria from 1944 
until 1990. (Again, see Appendix A for a more 
thorough history.) 

In this rich context, the Department of the 
Treasury has three design objectives: 

1 . To excavate the South Coun at least one level 
below grade to create space for an underground 
library. 

2. To landscape the level above the proposed 
basement librar)' as an accessible and attractive 
open space for employees and visitors. 

3. To preserve and enhance the architectural 
heritage uniquely present in the courtyard. 



After the White House 
and the Capitol, the 
Treasury Building 
is the third oldest 
existing federal 
go\emment structure 
in Washington, DC. 



Programmatically, this mandate is both exciting 
and complex. In the spirit of continued steward- 
ship, therefore, the Department convened a 
charrette — the term comes from a French phrase 
that described the hectic rush of students at the 
Ecole des Beaux Arts to complete their architec- 
tural drawings and today refers to a short but 
intense study of a particular design problem. In 
this case, the goal was to prepare guideUnes and 
design concepts to help assure that development 
of the South Court project will result in the best 
possible solution. The charrette team's recom- 
mendations are oudined in the pages that follow. 
They are divided among these categories: notes 
on the site and schematic design options; spe- 
cific guidelines addressing the library, landscape 
and preservation issues; comments on selecting 



the design team and certain aspects of the design 
process; and general thoughts on the budget and 
phasing of the project. 

The charrette was organized by the Design 
Arts Program of the National Endowment for 
the Arts and was held on July 28 and 29, 1992, 
in the Main Treasury Building (see Appendix B 
for the agenda). In particular, thanks are due 
these team members for giving their ideas and 
design talents: Norman Pfeiffer, architect and 
team chair; Jory Johnson, landscape architect; 
Anders Nereim, interior designer; Garth Rock- 
castle, architect; Martha Schwartz, landscape 
architect; and Ralph Schwarz, preservation 
architect (see Appendix C for team member 
biographies and list of charrette participants). 

South Court existing first floor plan. 




North 



Summary OF 
Recommendahons 



Site Constraints 

▼ Instead of just one level, consider the cost/ 
benefit implications of excavating two basement 
levels below grade for the library. 

T To avoid disturbing existing foundations, 
excavations for a first basement level must begin 
15 feet off the north and east walls of the South 
Court and extend into the ground at no more 
than a 45 degree angle. Excavations for a second 
basement level would continue that slope to the 
north and east and could begin no closer than 1 5 
feet to the south and west walls of the court and 
again extend into the ground at no more than a 
45 degree angle (see plan and section diagrams). 

▼ Basement passageways to the south and 
west and certain ductwork and air conditioning 
equipment to the north and south will remain in 
the court and must be incorporated into the 
library and landscape project. 



Spatial Options 

T Based on the architectural, landscape and 
preservation objectives, the South Court project 
should involve the programmatic, economic and 
aesthetic analysis of four conceptual volumetric 
alternatives: 

A single-level basement scheme 

A two-level basement scheme 

A single-level basement scheme plus a major 

enclosed courtyard pavilion 

A two-level basement scheme plus a major 

enclosed court)'ard pavilion 

Need for Synthesis 

T The South Court design should s)Tithesize the 
architecture, landscape and preservation ele- 
ments into a single, powerful solution. 

library Guidelines and Concepts 

T As an early component of the design effort, a 
programming study needs to be commissioned 




P^^ 



Section through South 
Court looking North. 



to fully determine present and futxire library 
needs. 

T The main Treasury and public entrance to the 
library should probably be on the first Qoor east 
facade. Service should be accommodated 
through a west, basement-level entrance. 

T Independent of the number of levels and 
architectural volume of the proposed librar)', 
each conceptual layout should include six basic 
elements: 

1 . A courtyard entry space off the first floor, east 
facade access with elevator service and stairs to 
aU levels of the scheme. 

2. A naturally-lit patron space with reading and 
other essential services as well as the main 
reference and check-out desk. 

3. A space that is a combination of stacks with 
special study and reference areas. 

4. A dense stack area for the bulk of the library 
collection. 

5. A naturally-lit backroom space with offices as 
weU as technical and support services. 

6. Access for the disabled at all levels. 

T Beyond cost, landscape and aesthetic issues, 
each conceptual layout for the library also needs 
to be evaluated in terms of four fundamental 
criteria: flexibility, future growth, natural fight, 
and patron responsiveness and comfort. 

T The library safety egress and mechanical 
equipment needs have to be clarified prior to 
soficiting designer qualifications or project 
proposals. 

Landscape Considerations 

T Similar to the case of the librar)', an early 
component of the design effon should be a 
programming study to determine the most 
effective and viable uses of the courtyard. 



T Alternative concepts for the landscaping 
should explore a variety of spatial options 
ranging from a single open area to multiple 
smaller gardens to multiple levels. 

▼ The critique of landscape proposals should 
include analyses of the court)'ard schemes both 
with and without people, from the perspectives 
of both being in the space and looking down on 
the space, and comments on the impact of 
seasonal changes. 

▼ Since the courtyard can be seen from above, 
the landscape design should minimize the 
potential fishbowl quaUty of the garden, whUe 
providing a pleasant view fi^om above. 

▼ Energize the courtyard with activities and ease 
of access. 

▼ These are among the elements that should be 
considered when developing the landscape 
scheme for the South Court: 



Light 


Color, Texture and 


Sound 


Seasonal Change 


Water 


Built Objects such 


as TreUises, Arbors 


Natural and 


and Pavifions 


Artificial Lighting 


The Balance of 


Seating 


Hard versus Soft 


SkyUghts 


Landscape Features 


The Selective Use 


The Blend of 


of Large Trees 


Individual and 




Group Uses 



T Whfle more complex landscape elements 
might be developed in the future, the location of 
large trees should be established as part of the 
first phase of the project. 



Preservation Issues 

▼ The trusses of the Office of the Supervising 
Architect should be preserved and reused as an 
element in the design of the courtyard. 

▼ As a facet of preserving the trusses and the 
memor)' of the Office of the Supervising .'Archi- 
tect at the Treasury' Building, the South Court 
project could ultimately include an exhibit on 
the work done by that office. 

T Vistas of the original Mills' facades should be 
reinforced, and sandstone should be used to 
replace the granite base that was added to those 
facades at a later date. 

The Design Process 

T A client team should be established to address 
the Department of the Treasury's interests and 
expertise with respect to the South Court reha- 
bilitation. This group should consistently include 
representatives from these areas: 

The Library 

Facilities Management Division 

Office of the Curator 

Administrative Operations Division 

Landscape and Open Space Advocates 

The National Park Service (responsible for 
maintaining the courtyard landscaping) 

T In sohciting and assembling a design team, 
these disciplines are crucial and should have 
leadership from people who bring a wealth of 
relevant experience to the South Court project: 

Architecture 
Landscape Architecture 
Preservation 

Programming and Research 
Construction Management 

T The RFQ or RFP for this effon should be open 
to proposals from both fully assembled teams 
and individual designers who the Treasury could 



later assemble as a team. In addition, the Trea- 
sury should reserve the right to select pan of a 
pre-assembled team and combine that with the 
expertise of other applicants. 

▼ Once the design team is in place, a first 
priority should be to complete the librar)- and 
lanckcape programming studies referred to 
earlier in this repon and to investigate existing 
examples of designs related to the South Court 
project as input into establishing a project profile 
and budget. 

▼ A second critical priority for the design team 
should be to develop several alternative propos- 
als for the court, presenting them in large models 
as well as drawings, and evaluating each with 
regard to such criteria as: 



Library Design 
Landscaping 
Preservation Goals 



Cost 

Phasing and 
Construction Options 



Budget and Phasing 

T A budget of $100,000 should cover profes- 
sional fees for the programming and schematic 
design phases of the South Court rehabilitation. 
This would not include preparation of construc- 
tion documents. 

T Landscaping can cost upwards of S50 per 
square foot ($840,000 for the South Court) but 
an interim and still very compelling scheme of 
paving, grass, gravel and irrigation could be 
installed for much less money (S 1 70,000 to 
$200,000 depending on the square footage of 
planted area). 

T The commitment should be made to a com- 
plete South Court design. Then, the project 
should be phased based on a budget strategy 
that not only responds to the utilit)' of the 
program but also makes it likel)' that the entire 
undertaking will ultimately be implemented. 



The South Court 
design should 
synthesize the 
architecture, 
landscape and 
preservation 
elements into a 
single, powerful 
solution. 



GiVENSAND 

Conceptual AuERNAiwES 



There was never any intention that the charrette 
team should come up with a single specific 
design proposal for the South Court project. That 
level of detail would emerge much later in the 
process after the designers had been selected and 
the program had been fully developed. On the 
other hand, the Department of the Treasur)' did 
want precise input on defining the physical 
boundaries of the problem, identrfxing basic 
alternatives in terms of design elements and 
architectural volumes, and articulating criteria 
that could be used to establish priorities for 
selecting among various project and phasing 
options. These fundamental concerns are ex- 
plored under the headings of Site Constraints 
and Spatial Options. 

Site Constraints 

T Instead of just one level, consider the cost/ 
benefit impUcations of excavating two basement 
levels below grade for the librar)-. 

Space is at a premium in the Main Treasur)' 
Building and a single-level basement Hbrarj' does 
not appear to leave much, if any, room for 
normal growth. Of course, as described later, it 
would be possible to build a "pa\ilion'" in the 
court)'ard to accommodate future needs, but as 
an alternative the charrette team also feels 
Treasur)' officials should evaluate the possibilities 
of excavating a second basement level. This has 
significant cost impUcations but still might be a 
better buy functionally, aesthetically and eco- 
nomically than having to add above-grade space 



at a later date. At a minimum, the pros and cons 
of such an option should be thoughtfully ana- 
l)zed for, unless it is done as part of this project, 
there will never be another opportunit)- to gain 
the extra square footage of a second basement in 
the South Coun. 

▼ To avoid disturbing existing foundations, 
excavations for a first basement level must begin 
15 feet off the north and east walls of the South 
Court and extend into the ground at no more 
than a 45 degree angle. Excavations for a second 
basement le\^el would continue that slope to the 
north and east and could begin no closer than 15 
feet to the south and west walls of the court and 
again extend into the ground at no more than a 
45 degree angle (see plan and section diagrams 
on pages 3 and 4). 

Following these engineering guidelines 
makes it possible to excavate without speci^ing 
cosd}' underpinning to the existing building. For 
programming and planning purposes, it also 
establishes, depending on the depth of each 
level, the maximum footprint for each of the 
basements. Finally, it identifies a 15-foot buffer 
to the north and east where trees could be 
planted as features of the landscape design 
without special constructions. 

▼ Basement passageways to the south and west 
and certain ductwork and air conditioning 
equipment to the north and south will remain 
in the coun and must be incorporated into the 
Hbrar)- and landscape project. 



These spaces and equipment could not be 
modified or moved except at great expense. Since 
there is no reason to believe that maintaining 
these elements would seriously interfere with the 
viabilit)' and quality of the project, and given a 
tight budget, the charrette team concurs with 
Treasury officials that monies are better spent on 
the library facilities and landscaping. 

Spatial Options 

T Based on the architectural, landscape and 
preservation objectives, the South Court project 
should involve the programmatic, economic and 
aesthetic analysis of four conceptual volumetric 
alternatives: 

A single-level basement scheme 

A two-level basement scheme 

A single-level basement plus a major enclosed 
courtyard pavilion scheme 

A two-level basement plus a major enclosed 
courtyard pavilion scheme 

The charrette team recommends that the archi- 
tectural volume of the South Court project be 
limited to four design options using one or more 
of three possible floor levels. Taking into account 
the site limitations mentioned above and wall-to- 
wall court dimensions of approximately 120 by 
140 feet, the three general floor levels and their 
associated architectural footprint are: 

Level A: 

First Basement Below Grade 1 1 ,800 Sq. Ft. 

Level B: 

Second Basement Below Grade 7,300 Sq.Ft. 

Level C: 

A Major Enclosed 4,000 to 

Courtyard Pavilion 5,000 Sq.Ft. 



The four recommended design options are: 

1. Level A Only 

(single-level basement scheme) 1 1,800 Sq.Ft. 

2. Level A -•- Level B 

(two-level basement scheme) 19,100 Sq.Ft. 



3. Level A + Level C 

(single-level basement plus 
a major enclosed courtyard 
pavilion scheme) 



15,800 to 
16,800 Sq.Ft. 



4. Level A + Level B + Level C 

(two-level basement plus a 

major enclosed courtyard 23, 100 to 

pavilion scheme) 24,100 Sq.Ft. 



Option 1: 
Level A Onty 




Option 2: 

level A + Level B 







XT 



The charrette team passes on these thoughts 
regarding the design options: 

The first scheme is the least expensive but 
also the least flexible. There is little or no room 
for Ubrary growth, a fact that ultimately may 
require the installation of compact shehing. In 
addition, the programming study may establish 
that present needs exceed the 11, 800 square feet 
in Level A. 

In a building where space constraints are tight, 
the second scheme offers the benefit of addi- 
tional square footage. Obviously, the second 



Option 3: 

level A + Level C 



basement must be planned for fi-om the begin- 
ning, perhaps being justified as a potentially cost- 
effective way to deal with long-term library 
growth. 

The third scheme handles library growth with 
the construction of an above ground pavilion. 
This architectural element could be an attractive 
entrance and reading room but should be 
carefully studied to complement the preservation 
and landscape goals of the project, perhaps 
incorporating the trusses of the Office of the 
Supervising Architect. 

The fourth scheme generates the most additional 
space. If that is valued, then a strateg)' for phas- 
ing the project would have to be developed to 
make it possible fi-om an economic and design 
standpoint. 




The charrette team also considered the possibili- 
ties of covering the courtyard as a great atrium 
and designing a multi-level, above-grade struc- 
ture in the coun but did not believe these 
schemes were as compelling as the four options 
discussed above. 



Option 4: 

Level A + Level B + Level C 




The South Court 
project should 
involve the program- 
matic, economic and 
aesthetic analysis of 
four conceptual 
volumetric solutions. 



The Solution: A Synthesis of 
Architecture, Landscape and Preservahon 



▼ The South Court design should synthesize the 
architecture, landscape and preservation ele- 
ments into a single, powerful solution. 

As the counterpoint to the general site and 
schematic guidelines put forth in the preceding 
section of the report, the charrette team devel- 
oped more specific recommendations for the 
architecture, landscape and preservation aspects 
of the project. They are spelled out under the 
headings Library Guidelines and Concepts, 
Landscape Considerations and Preservation 
Issues. The caveat that accompanies this list, 
however, is that, while the comments are in three 
separate categories, the final South Court design 
must synthesize this diversity of ideas into a 
single, powerful scheme. The architecture, 
landscape and preservation elements of the 
project should inform and enhance one another. 
It would be a mistake, for instance, to have an 
architectural or preservation solution for the 
courtyard and then simply add some landscaping 
to the space. Ultimately, there should be a 
richness (this is not sjTionymous with complex) 
but also a complementary and harmony among 
the features in the court. 



Library Guidelines and Concepts 

▼ As an early component of the design effort, a 
programming study needs to be commissioned 
to fully determine present and future library 
needs. 

Treasury staff have gathered some statistics 
and other information on library materials, use, 
equipment, space and problems with their 
quarters on the fifth floor. As an initial step in 
the design process, however, this data should be 
confirmed and elaborated upon in a thorough 
and professional programming study, a docu- 
ment that would not only detail present needs 
but also identif)' future trends with respect to 
growth, technology and user services. 

▼ The main Treasury and public entrance to the 
librar)' should probably be on the first floor east 
facade. Service should be accommodated 
through a west, basement-level entrance. 

This configuration has several advantages. 
Access to the courtyard already exists through 
the first floor east facade and, as pan of a main 
public hallway, could easily be developed into a 
gracious and clear entry to the library. This path 
is also very near the Treasur)' Building visitor and 
appointment entrance. The west basement-level 
service door makes sense because it is close to a 
parking and delivery area and, because of its 
more remote location, avoids potential confusion 



Ultimatefy there 
should be a richness 
(this is not 
synonymous with 
complex) but also 
a complementary 
and harmony 
among the features 
in the court. 



10 



and overlap among patron and staff uses of the 
library. One potential drawback to an east facade 
entr>- to the librar)' is that it could interfere with 
one of the two original Mills' facades, if not 
carefully designed. (The other remaining facade 
is the north wall of the South Court). It should 
be noted that at the first floor level the Mill's 
facades have been gready compromised by the 
granite added at a later date. 

T Independent of the number of levels and 
architectural volume of the proposed library, 
each conceptual layout should include six basic 
elements: 

1 . A courtyard entry space off the first floor, east 
facade access with elevator service and stairs to 
all levels of the scheme. 

2. A naturally-lit patron space with reading and 
other essential services as well as the main 
reference and check-out desk. 

3. A space that is a combination of stacks with 
special study and reference areas. 

4. A dense stack area for the bulk of the library 
collection. 

5. A naturally-lit backroom space with offices as 
well as technical and support services. 

6. Access for the disabled at all levels. 

These are the basic components of the Treasury 
library and would be part of any scheme be it a 
single- or multi-level proposal. The charrette 




team prepared a conceptual layout for the single- 
basement option but urges that similar layouts 
be done for each of the volumetric approaches 
outlined in the "Givens and Conceptual Alterna- 
tives" section of this report. In every case, com- 
plete access for the disabled should be thought- 
fully integrated into the design. As a special note, 
the team cited the need for natural lighting in the 
patron and ofiice areas. Such lighting should not 
simpl)' be light wells that pop up into the garden 
like the ones in the Smithsonian Quadrangle but 
should be integrated thoughtfully and creatively 
into the garden design. 

T Beyond cost, landscape and aesthetic issues, 
each conceptual layout for the Ubrar)- also needs 
to be evaluated in terms of four fundamental 
criteria: flexibilit)', future growth, natural light, 
and patron responsiveness and comfort. 

The precise definitions and elements of 
these additional librar)' criteria need to be 
established as part of the programming process. 
Once they have been articulated, they become 
important factors in determining the optimum 
design from among several possible solutions. 

▼ The librar)' safet)' egress and mechanical 
equipment needs have to be clarified prior to 
soUciting designer qualifications or project 
proposals. 

The charrette team feels it is valuable to 
have definitive information on these two issues 
because such facts can have an impact on 
planning and the development of different design 
concepts. 



Asymmetrical scheme 
mth the public entrance 
at the east facade and 
open vistas to the two 
ori^nal Mill's facades. 



11 



Landscape Considerations 

▼ Similar to the case of the library, an early 
component of the design effort should be a 
programming study to determine the most 
effective and viable uses of the courtyard. 

While the idea of landscaping the South 
Court is excellent, at this point, there is not 
enough data on how the court will be used to 
generate a good schematic plan. Before design 
begins, research needs to be completed on a 
program for the space. Will the court be used 
for chatting and casual meetings? Will it be used 
for lunch and coffee breaks? Will it be largely a 
visual amenity? Will the snack bar be in the 
court or in the building? Will it be used for tours 
and formal recepdons? Will it contain an exhibit? 
How many people will use it? Who will maintain 
it and what resources will be devoted to upkeep? 
What should be the interrelation between the 
landscaped court and the library? These are just a 
few of the questions that have to be answered 
before design can begin. A thoughtful program- 
ming effort will gather this kind of input, infor- 
mation essential to ending up with a project that 
really works rather than simply looks good on 
paper. The A/E should be involved in this study. 

▼ Alternative concepts for the landscaping 
should explore a variety of spatial options 
ranging from a single open area to multiple 
smaller gardens to multiple levels. 

To a significant degree, the courtyard 
landscaping is dependent on the design of the 
library and the links that might be created 
among the library, the garden and the existing 
facades. On the other hand, the sociology of the 
open space itself must also be taken into consid- 
eration. Would the court work best if it is per- 
ceived as one large area or would people feel 
more comfortable in a collection of more inti- 
mate spaces? In either approach, the use of 



different levels needs to be reviewed. A final 
design will emerge from the creative overlap of 
building, landscape and preservation criteria, but 
within that context a full spectrum of schemes 
should be investigated. 

▼ The critique of landscape proposals should 
include analyses of the courtyard schemes both 
with and without people, from the perspectives 
of both being in the space and looking down on 
the space, and comments on the impact of 
seasonal changes. 

The courtyard garden will serve many 
functions. It will be an entry for the library. It will 
be a place to walk through and sit in. It will also 
be a place to look at and look down on from the 
surrounding offices and meeting rooms. Obvi- 
ously, too, its character will shift season to 
season. A final design should be selected and 
implemented only after these several points of 
view have been carefially studied. 

▼ Since the courtyard can be seen from above, 
the landscape design should minimize the 
potential fishbowl quality of the garden, while 
providing a pleasant view from above. 

The challenge here will be to open up vistas 
to the historic facades, particularly those de- 
signed by Mills and, at the same time, establish a 
sense of place in the court where people do not 
think they are on display. Although not limited 
to these ideas, the charrette team befieves the 
following strategies can help reduce any Fishbowl 
effect and refieve the ominous effect of the 
massive vertical walls: create spaces that have an 
overhead landscape (e.g., a canopy of trees) or 
construct an arbor or trellis; devise a design that 
estabfishes a sense of being in an outdoor room 
or rooms; blend tall and low^ plant material; 
avoid landscaping that is directly aligned with 
windows; and use furniture that may be moved 
from one spot in the court to another. 



19 



Alternate concepts 
for the landscaping 
should explore a 
\ariety of spatial 
options ranging 
from a single open 
area to multiple 
smaller gardens to 
multiple levels. 



Symmetrical scheme 
with center paxihon 
and terrace. 




▼ Energize the courtyard with activities and ease 
of access. 

Unless it w^ere decided that the court should 
only be seen, making certain that it "works" — 
that it attracts and is used by people — has to be 
a top landscape design priority. The program- 
ming study will be essential in distilling how to 
best reach this goal. In addition, or maybe simply 
reiterating the conclusions of that research, 
moving the snack bar from the basement into or 
adjacent to the courtyard and having entries to 
the garden from more than one side should be 
facets of the plan to assure the vitality of the 
open space. 

T These are among the elements that should be 
considered when developing the landscape 
scheme for the South Court; 



Light 
Sound 


Color, Texture and 
Seasonal Change 


Water 

Natural and 
Artificial Lighting 

Seating 


Built Objects such 
as Trellises, Arbors 
and Pavilions 

The Balance of 
Hard versus Soft 


Skylights 


Landscape Features 


The Selective Use 
of Large Trees 


The Blend of 
Individual and 
Group Uses 



This litany is offered not as a checklist but as a 
way of suggesting the rich palate of landscape 
options that should be considered for the South 
Court. The ultimate design need not use a lot of 
materials but a variet)' of alternatives should be 
explored. 

Light and sound are mentioned because 
they are especially important in this situation. 
The taD facades surrounding the court may leave 
the space in shadow much of the year. After 
careful study, plant and landscape materials can 
be selected that will not only survive in this 
environment but also enliven the court with 
color and light. Sound is also a significant issue 
because of the air conditioner noise that fills the 
courtyard during the summer. This should be 
overcome with the introduction of elements that 
add "white noise" — chimes, the rusde of leaves 
and even small fountains. 

T While more complex landscape elements 
might be developed in the future, the location of 
large trees should be established as part of the 
first phase of the project. 

To assure proper growlJi, trees planted 
above the library building require broad soil 
wells three to six feet deep. Planning for these 
trees, even if they are put in at a later date, is 
essential since it would be too cosdy to design 
the entire library roof to accommodate trees and 
it would be impossible to put them in after the 
fact without soil wells Qarge containers can be 
used for trees but the charrette team does not 
feel this is a viable alternative to committing to 
this aspect of the landscape design in advance). 
Such planning might also permit using the tower 
crane to install the trees during the first phase of 
the South Court rehabilitation. 



Preservation Issues 

▼ The tmsses of the Office of the Supervising 
Architect should be preserved and reused as an 
element in the design of the courtyard. 

The charrette team feels that the "portable" 
structure built to house the Supervising 
Architect's drafting room was a significant place 
since it was here that so many major federal 
buildings were designed. To maintain the 
memory of that edifice and the many contribu- 
tions to American architecture associated with it, 
the recommendation is to preserve its distinctive 
trusses for reuse in the courtyard design. 

The team does not have a particular reuse in 
mind. All or only a portion of the trusses could 
be reinstalled. They could maintain their existing 
configuration or be put together to create a 
different form. They could be supported on new 
columns and they might remain in their present 
location or be moved to another spot in the 
court. A portion of the trussed area could be 
glazed and used as part of the entr)' or court)'ard 
level library pavilion or exhibit space. The trusses 
could become a garden trellis or they might 
simply be considered a sculpture and reminder 
of this important part of the history of the 
Department of the Treasury. 

Finally, less they be lost or destroyed, the 
team feels the trusses should be dismanded and 
remain in the courtyard until they are re-erected 
as part of the new garden. 

▼ As a facet of preserving the trusses and the 
memory of the Office of the Supervising Archi- 
tect at the Treasury Building, the South Coun 
project could ultimately include an exhibit on 
the work done by that office. 

As already mentioned, buildings designed 
by Office of the Supervising Architect are among 
America's masterworks and, in many cases, are 



landmarks in the urban fabric. This exhibit 
would recall the heritage of these structures, 
describe how the Supervising Architect's office 
worked, summarize its history, and cite the 
names and accomplishments of the numerous 
talented people employed by this division of the 
Treasury. An added feature of the exhibit might 
be the re-creation of panels that separated desks 
in the drafting room for use as surfaces to mount 
displays. 

▼ Vistas of the original Mills' facades should be 
reinforced, and sandstone should be used to 
replace the granite base that was added to those 
facades at a later date. 

The Mills' facades are one of the most 
attractive features of the Main Treasury Building 
and the South Court is the only location where it 
is possible to get a complete sense of their 
beauty, scale and detail. Enhancing the view 
towards this part of the building creates a stron- 
ger sense of place, helps orient employees and 
visitors alike, and highlights the history and 
development of the Treasury structure. In this 
context, the granite base of the Mills' facades 
should be replaced with sandstone since that 
was the material originally used in their construc- 
tion. The removal of the granite base will also 
provide an opportunity to stud)' this level of the 
original Mills' facades, establishing original 
openings and possibly another earlier access to 
the courtyard. 



^z. 






The trvtsses of 
the Office of the 
Supervising Architect 
should be preserved 
and reused as an 
element in the design 
of the courtyard. 



14 



The Design Process 



Circa 1860 staircase in 
South Wmg with oak ka\es 
and oli\e branches railing. 



A skillfully orchestrated process is essential to 
achie\ing qualit)' design results. In this arena, the 
charrene team proposes several guidelines that it 
feels should be integrated with the traditional 
federal approach to project de\'elopment. 

T A client team should be established to address 
the Department of the Treasury's interests and 
expertise with respect to the South Court reha- 
bilitation. This group should consistendy include 
representatives from these areas: 
The librar)- 

Facilities Management Division 
Office of the Curator 
Administrati\"e Operations Division 
Landscape and Open Space Advocates 
The National Park Service (responsible for 
maintaining the court\:ard landscaping) 

Outstanding design is the result of effective 
coUaboration between good and knowledgeable 
clients and talented designers. .-\s the counterpart 
to the design team, then, the Department of the 
Treasur)- needs to create a client team that can 
work with and inform the decision making of the 
designers in a dialogue that is open-minded, 
creative and respectful of the building. 

T In soliciting and assembling a design team. 

these disciplines are crucial and should have 

leadership from people wiio bring a wealth of 

relevant experience to the South Court project: 

Architecture 

Landscape .Architecture 

Presen"ation 

Programming and Research 

Construction Management 




Given the nature of this undertaking, it is self- 
explanaior)' why most of these professions are 
included on the design team. Two, however, 
merit brief comment. Programming and research 
specialists are noted because much needs to be 
done in this area to focus and clariR' the design 
goals. These people need to be chosen and work 
with the designers. They will also seek extensive 
input from the client team and Treasurv- person- 
nel. The construction manager is important 
because, given the economic constraints affecting 
the court)'ard rehabilitation, this person can help 
identif)- the costs and the most efficient way of 
phasing the project. 



15 



▼ The RFQ or RFP for this effon should be open 
to proposals from both fully assembled teams 
and individual designers who the Treasury could 
later assemble as a team. In addition, the Trea- 
sury should reserve the right to select part of a 
pre-assembled team and combine that with the 
expertise of other applicants. 

The charrette team feels that this approach 
will enable the Treasury to hire the best possible 
talent. The perennial caveat, of course, is to make 
sure team members can establish effective 
communications and that their mutual goal is to 
create a design that truly integrates architecture, 
landscape and presenation rather than have one 
of those elements dominate or overwhelm the 
others. The landscape architect must be an equal 
parmer with the architect in developing an 
appropriate design. To help with the selection 
process, a related suggestion is to engage outside 
professionals or the Design Arts Program of the 
National Endowment for the Arts to help review 
responses and assemble the optimum design 
team. 

T Once the design team is in place, a first 
priority should be to complete the library and 
landscape programming studies referred to 
earlier in this report and to investigate existing 
examples of designs related to the South Court 
project as input into establishing a project profile 
and budget. 

While general goals have been established, 
many programmatic details have yet to be 
resolved. Further, a professionally-led study will 
gather the facts needed to assure the quality, 
vitality and long-term utility' of this important 



design effon. A facet of this research should be 
to analyze places that already exist for lessons 
relevant to the architecture, landscape and 
preservation objectives of this project. All this 
data can contribute to establishing the profile of 
this project and the resources needed to com- 
plete it. 

T A second critical priority for the design team 
should be to develop several alternative propos- 
als for the court, presenting them in large models 
as well as drawings, and evaluating each with 
regard to such criteria as: 

Librar)' Design 

Landscaping 

Preservation Goals 

Cost 

Phasing and Construction Options 

The charrette team urges the Treasury' to con- 
sider several possible design solutions before 
committing itself to one approach. Full-scale 
mock-ups of important elements of the design, 
such as the library entrance pavilion and trusses, 
should be erected in the space to determine their 
appropriateness. The South Coun rehabilitation 
is a significant endeavor, one that — like the 
restoration of interior spaces in the Main Trea- 
sury- Building — can become a model for others 
with similar challenges. This open space can be 
one of Washington's special places, a blending 
of function, history' and beauty. In this light, the 
resources devoted to the early and thorough 
exploration of alternatives can simply be inter- 
preted as a wise long-term investment. 



16 



Comments on the 

Budget and Phasing the Project 



The commitment 
should he made to a 
complete South Court 
design. Then, the 
project should be 
phased based on 
a budget strategy that 
not only responds 
to the utility of the 
program but also 
makes it likely that 
the entire undertaking 
will ultimately be 
implemented. 



Without a specific design and the proper exper- 
tise, the charrette team feels it is impossible, 
professionally unwise, and a disservice to the 
Treasury to make detailed comments concerning 
the budget. It does offer several insights to help 
with the planning related to this important issue 
and reiterates the necessity to hire a construction 
manager to determine the appropriate project 
phasing and help get the most value for the 
dollars available. 

T A budget of $100,000 should cover profes- 
sional fees for the programming and schematic 
design phases of the South Coun rehabilitation. 
This would not include preparation of construc- 
tion documents. 

Although by government standards, this 
cost is above average, it can be justified because 
of the unique nature of the South Court project. 
In addition, as mentioned in the previous section 
of this repon, the professional expenses during 
the early stages of this endeavor are being used 
to assure the long-term viabifity and quality of 
this important federal undertaking. Perhaps 
certain components of the budget can be aug- 
mented from private sources because of the 
significance of this effort. 

T Landscaping can cost upwards of $50 per 
square foot ($840,000 for the South Court) but 
an interim and still very compelling scheme of 
paving, grass, gravel and irrigation could be 
installed for much less money ($170,000 to 
$200,000 depending on the square footage of 
planted area). 

Landscaping, done well, is not inexpensive. 
To reduce costs, what the charrette team recom- 
mends is to develop a long-term proposal, select 
a few key elements (perhaps large trees, basic 



drainage and irrigation) that might be installed 
during the first phase of the project, and then 
put a compelling but less extravagant interim 
design in place, implementing the final design at 
a later date. 

▼ The commitment should be made to a com- 
plete South Court design. Then, the project 
should be phased based on a budget strategy 
that not only responds to the utifit)' of the 
program but also makes it likely that the entire 
undertaking will ultimately be implemented. 

There is no doubt that the $1 miUion plus- 
or-minus-budget is inadequate to fulfill all the 
programmatic objectives of the South Court 
rehabifitation. The Treasury's own faciUties 
group estimates the cost to excavate and con- 
struct a single-level basement shell to be approxi- 
mately $500,000. Another $100,000 is needed 
to remove the structure of the Office of the 
Supervising Architect. (It would be more expen- 
sive to save and restore the trusses). Design fees 
will be more than $100,000; basic landscaping 
will cost in the range of $200,000; and a scheme 
that calls for more than one level, as well as 
items not included here, will add further pres- 
sure to the budget. 

In this situation, the charrette team believes 
the strategy should be twofold. First, the Trea- 
sury should select the optimum, long-term 
design for the South Court. Next, within the 
maximum allotted budget, it should implement, 
as the first phase of that project, those compo- 
nents of the design that simultaneously create a 
functional and attractive space and make the fuU 
implementation of the final design as feasible 
and as inevitable as possible with both additional 
and year-to-year facilities funding. 



17 



Appendix A: 
Historical Background 



History of the Treasury Building 

In the first years of the American republic's 
existence, the government was quartered in 
Philadelphia until the new capital dty as autho- 
rized in the Constitution was built on the banks 
of the Potomac River. In 1800, the government 
moved to Washington DC, and the Department 
of the Treasury moved into a porticoed Georgian- 
st)'le building designed by an English architect, 
George Hadfield. This structure was burned by 
die British in 1814, but was rebuilt by White 
House architect James Hoban. This building was 
identical to three others located on lots adjacent 
to the White House, each housing one of the 
four original departments of the U.S. Govern- 
ment: State, War, Navy and Treasury. The 
Treasury Building, to the southeast of the White 
House, was burned b)' arsonists in 1833 with 
only the fireproof wing left standing. 

The present Treasury Building is a magnifi- 
cent granite structure in the Greek Revival style; 
it was built over a period of 33 years between 
1836 and 1869. The east and center wings, 
designed by Robert Mills, architect of the Wash- 
ington Monument and the Patent Office Build- 
ing, comprise the first pan of the building 
constructed from 1836 to 1842. The most 



architecturaUy impressive feature of the Mills 
design is the east fi-ont colonnade running the 
length of the building. Each of the 30 columns is 
36 feet tall and was carved out of a single block 
of granite. The interior design of the east and 
center wings is classically austere, in keeping 
with the Greek Revival Style. 

Later additions were made to the original 
wings, beginning with the construction of the 
south wing from 1855 to 1860 and the west 
wing from 1855 to 1864. The preliminary design 
of the wings was provided b)' Thomas Ustick 
Walter, architect of the dome of the U.S. Capitol, 
but architects Ammi B. Young and Isaiah Rogers 
refined the plans, designed the interior details, 
and supervised construction. While the exterior 
of the building was executed along the lines of 
the original Mills wings, the interiors of the later 
wings reflect changes in both building technol- 
ogy and aesthetic tastes. Iron columns and 
beams reinforced the building's brick vaults; 



North wing designed by 
Alfred B. Mullett and 
built from 1867-1869. 




18 



Recentfy restored office 
of Salmon P. Chase, 
Secretary of the Treasury; 
1861-1864. 




the architectural detailing became much more 
ornate, foUowing mid- 19th centur)' fashion. 

The final addition to the Treasury' Building 
was the north wing, built fi-om 1867 to 1869. 
Its architect was Alfred B. Mullett, who subse- 
quendy designed the State, War, and Navy 
Buildings (now the Old Executive Office Build- 
ing) on the other side of the White House. 
Similar in construction and decor to the south 
and west wings, the north wing is unique as the 
site of the Cash Room — a t>^o-stor>' marble hall 
in which the daily financial business of the U.S., 
Government could be transacted. The room was 
opened in 1869 as the site of President Ulysses 
S. Grant's Inaugural Reception. 

The Treasury Building is the third oldest 
federal building after the White House and the 
Capitol in Washington, DC. It is the oldest 
federal department building and has had a great 
impact on the design of other government 



buildings. At the time of its completion, it v\as 
one of the largest office buildings in the world. It 
served as a barrack for soldiers during the Ci\il 
War and as the temporary- "White House" for 
President Andrew Johnson following the assassi- 
nation of President Lincoln in 1865. The Trea- 
sur)' Building is unquestionably a monument of 
continuing architectural and historic significance. 

In 1972 the Treasur}' Building was desig- 
nated a National Historic Landmark in recogni- 
tion of its architectural and historical significance 
and a program for restoration of the building and 
its collection was begun a litde over a decade 
later. In order to generate the necessary funding 
for the restoration projects, the Committee for 
the Preservation of the Treasur)- Building was 
established. Today. pubUc spaces such as the 
Cash Room, corridors and lobbies, have been 
restored and reflect the building's original 19th 
century design. With the 200th armiversary of 
the Treasur)' Department, restoration of private 
office spaces was undertaken, illustrating specific 
historic events of the Department's past and 
depicting the finest decorative st)ies of the 
period. These rooms are the Andrew Johnson 
Suite and the Salmon Chase Suite. 

The Chase Suite is historically important 
because it was the office of one of the most 
notable Secretaries of the Treasury', where financ- 
ing the Civil War was negotiated and imple- 
mented. Original highly decorated painting and 
ceiling murals have been exposed in this suite. 
The Andrew Johnson Suite, in addition to being 
decorated by the prestigious New York 
cabtnetmaldng firm Pottier & St)'mus, also 
served as the President's office in 1865. 



19 



Tlie Office of the Supervising Architect 

One of the important historical responsibilities 
of the United States Treasury Department was 
directing and managing the Office of the Super- 
vising Architect. This office was established in 
1852 in response to the design needs of an 
expanding nation. The Office of the Supervising 
Architect had sole responsibility for the design 
and construction of all federal buildings — 
courthouses, post offices, mints, marine hospi- 
tals and custom houses. 

Because the Supervising Architect's office 
had outgrown its original space within the Main 
Treasury Building, an independent structure 
was erected in the South Court of the Treasury 
Building in 1891 to house the Office of the 
Supervising Architect. The structure would 
provide drafting space for as many as 160 
employees to design what eventually would total 
over several hundred federal buildings during its 
tenure with Treasury. The most revolutionary- 
feature of this structure was that it was intended 
as a "portable" building. The design of the 
building was a rectangular shape with two 
enormous peaked roofs. The materials of the 
structure called for the innovative use of steel 
and glass, with solid panels of glass on the 
northern sides of the peaked roofe to allow 
daylight directly onto the drafting tables. At the 
height of its operation, the Office of the Supervis- 
ing Architect was responsible for the largest 
single operation of architects anywhere in the 
world. The varied skills and expertise required 



for designing a building were unified under one 
roof This was the first "firm" of this size in the 
world. Commissions included the U.S. Mint in 
Philadelphia; U.S. Mint in Denver, Colorado; 
Post Office in Pueblo, Colorado; Post Office in 
Buffalo, New York; and Custom House, New 
London, Connecticut. 

The Supervising Architect's building was 
designed by James Windrim, then the Supervis- 
ing Architect. Windrim was undoubtedly in- 
spired by the steel and glass constructions of the 
1853 Crystal Palace in London, England, and the 
structures at the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in 
Philadelphia. 

The Office of the Supervising Architect was 
phased into the PubUc Buildings Administration 
in 1939 and Treasury ceased its responsibility for 
federal architectural design at that time. After the 
Supervising Architect's Office moved to the fifth 
floor of the Main Treasury Building in 1910, the 
structure was occupied by the Counting Division 
of the National Bank and Redemption Agency of 
Treasury and by 1 944 the structure was used as 
an employee cafeteria. At that time, the interior 
was altered dramatically with the installation of a 
drop ceiling that hid the truss construction from 
view. The cafeteria functions were transferred to 
the Treasury Annex in 1990 and the Supervising 
Architect's structure has stood unoccupied since 
that time. 



The Office of the 
Supervising Architect 
had sole responsibility 
for the design and 
construction of all 
federal buildings - 
courthouses, post 
offices, mints, 
marine hospitals 
and custom houses. 



20 



Appendix B: 

The Charrette Agenda 



Tuesday, July 28, 1992 

8:30 am Continental Breakfast 

Room 4125, Main Treasury 

9:00 am Welcome by David M. Nummy, 

Assistant Secretar)' for Management 

9:05 am Overview Slide Show 

"Treasury, a National Historic Landmark" 

Jane L. G. Barton 

Chief Curator and Preservation Officer 

9:20 am Project Overview - "Charrette Objectives" 

John D. Robinson, Director 
Facilities Management Division 

9:30 am Hard Hat Tour 

John D. Robinson and Pedro A. Porro, AIA 

10:30 am Wrap-up of Tour /Questions 

Pedro A. Porro, ALA 
Manager of Planning & Projections 
Facilities Management Division 



10:45 am 


Overview of Library Collection and Services 




Susan Perella, Assistant Director 




Library and Information Services 


11:00 am 


Break 


11:15 am 


Design Team Discussion of Site Visit Briefings 




Outline Charrette Format 


12:15 pm 


Lunch, Cafeteria, Treasur)' Annex Building 


1:00 pm 


Charrette 


6:00 pm 


Reception and Tour of Treasury restored spaces 


7:00 pm 


Dinner 


Wednesday 


, July 29, 1992 


8:30 am 


Continental Breakfast, 




Room 4125, Main Treasury Building 


9:00 am 


Charrette 


12:00 noon 


Report and Closing Remarks 


1:00 pm 


Adjourn 



Appendix C: 

Charrette Team Members 



Norman Pfeiffer 

Los Angeles, California (Charrette Chair) 

Mr. Pfeiffer is a founding principal and partner in 
Hardy Holzman Pfeiffer Associates, one the 
nation's foremost architecture offices, recognized 
for its new designs and sensitive adaptations of 
existing structures. In 1981 the firm received 
AlA's Architectural Firm Award. Mr. Pfeiffer is 
currendy directing the rehabilitation and East 
Wing Addition to the Los Angeles Central 
Library, the restoration of Memorial Church at 
Stanford University', renovation of the Language 
Comer Building and adaptive reuse of the 
Cooksey House, Stanford, CA. His previous 
projects include the American Film Institute 
West Coast Campus Development in Los Ange- 
les, Alaska Center for the Performing Arts in 
Anchorage, Boettcher Concert Hall in Denver, 
and the Seatde Public Library, Downtown 
Facility Planning and Programming Study in 
Seatde. Mr. Pfeiffer is a frequent contributor to 
discussions on issues of architecture and urban- 
ism, including the "Critics and Cranes" Sympo- 
sium featuring newsmakers in the design of 
downtown Los Angeles. He received a Bachelor 
of Architecture from the Universit)' of Washing- 
ton and Master of Architecture from Columbia 
University. 

Joiy Johnson 

Urbana, Illinois 

Mr. Johnson is an assistant professor in the 
Department of Landscape Architecture at the 
University of Illinois and a private consultant. 
His landscape architecture projects include 



Gateway Park North and Crystal Water Park in 
Arlington, VA; finalist in the Agronomics Build- 
ing Public art Project in Raleigh, NC; and first 
place winner in the Criminal Courts Plaza 
Competition in Charlotte, NC. Mr. Johnson is 
the award-winning author of Modem Landscape 
Architecture: Redefining the Garden and has been 
a contributing editor for Landscape Architecture 
since 1988. His 1992 contributions to the 
magazine include "The Sky's the limit," "A 
Common-Sense Designer," and "Formal Objects 
Public Vision." He is the recipient of the Ameri- 
can Society of Landscape Architects' Bradford 
WilUams Medal. Mr. Johnson received his 
Bachelor of Arts degree from Trinity College and 
a Master of Landscape Architecture from the 
Harvard University' Graduate School of Design. 

Anders Nereim 

Chicago, Illinois 

Mr. Nereim is a practicing architect and an 
associate professor of interior design at the 
School of the Art Institute of Chicago. His 
work has won numerous awards from both 
the American Institute of Architects and the 
American Wood Council, including the young 
Architect Aw^rd from the Chicago Chapter of the 
AIA. Mr. Nereim 's paintings and drawings are 
included in the permanent collections of the Art 
Institute of Chicago, the Deutsches Architektur 
Museum and the Chemical Bank of New York. 
He is curtendy working on the book, Looking 
Into Form, funded under a grant bom the Gra- 
ham Foundation. His writings have appeared 
in such publications as Architectural Record, 



22 



The landscape 
architect must he 
an equal partner 
with the architect 
in developing an 
appropriate design. 



Progressive Architecture, Architecture, Inland 
Architect, Skyline and the Journal oj Architectural 
Education. Mr. Nereim is a past member of the 
Board of Directors of the Chicago Chapter of the 
AIA and is presendy a member of the AIA's 
National Committee on Design. He holds a 
Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from the 
University of Chicago and Bachelor of Architec- 
ture from the University of Illinois at Chicago. 

Garth Rockcastle 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Mr. Rockcasde is principal in the firm of Meyer 
Scherer & Rockcasde, Ltd., and head of the 
Department of Architecture at the University of 
Minnesota. His recent commissions include the 
Sahara West Library and Art Museum, Las Vegas; 
renovation and addition to the University of 
Minnesota Dance Facility and General Mills 
Recognition Court, Minneapolis; Carmelite 
Monastery, Lake Elmo, MN; and Riverfront 
Museum Park, Rockford, IL. Mr. Rockcasde 
serves as chafr of the Board of Dfrectors of 
Concourse for Contemporary Art and has served 
on the Board of Directors for Artspace Projects, 
Inc., and the Downtown CouncU of Minneapolis. 
The founding editor of Midgard, he is also author 
of numerous reviews and articles for publications 
such as Architectural Record, Progressive Architec- 
ture, Inforin, Inland Architect and Arcliitecfure. 
Mr. Rockcasde received a Bachelor of Architec- 
ture from Pennsylvania State University and a 
Master of Urban Design from Cornell University. 

Martha Schwartz 

San Francisco, California 

Ms. Schwartz is principal of Martha Schwartz, 
Inc. and adjunct professor of Landscape at the 
Harvard University Graduate School of Design. 
She is known for using objects not normally 
associated with gardens and incorporating them 



with traditional garden forms. Recent commis- 
sions include the Los Angeles Center; "Turf 
Parterre" for the World Financial Center, Battery 
Park, New York; "Limed Parterre with Skywrit- 
ing," Radcliffe College, Cambridge, MA; along 
with the winning design competition entries for 
Marina Linear Park in San Diego and Todos 
Santos Plaza in Concord, CA. Ms. Schwartz is a 
frequent lecturer and design critic and recendy 
authored Praxis Geographie. She has won numer- 
ous awards from the American Societ)' of Land- 
scape Architects and was a resident at the 
American Academy in Rome. Ms. Schwartz 
received her Bachelor of Fine Arts and Master of 
Landscape Architecture from the University of 
Michigan along with completijig the Landscape 
Architecture Program at the Harvard Graduate 
School of Design. 

Ralph G. Schwarz 

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 

Mr. Schwarz is director of Historic Bethlehem, 
Inc. and president of the Moravian Archives. He 
has served as special planning representative for 
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, president of the 
AIA Urban Design and Development Corpora- 
tion, and president of Historic New Harmony, 
Inc. Mr. Schwarz was a partner with Richard 
Meier & Partners, Architects. He has been 
responsible for planning, schematic design and 
development of such major buildings as The 
Ford Foundation, New York City; The Atheneum 
in New Harmony, IN; the J. Paul Getty Fine Arts 
Center, Los Angeles, CA; the People s Bank 
headquarters, Bridgepon, CT; and A Living 
Memorial to the Holocaust, Museum of Jewish 
Heritage in New York City. Mr. Schwarz received 
a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering 
and international relations and a master's degree 
in histor)' from Lehigh University', and a Doctor 
of Humanities from Indiana State University. 



Appendix C: 

List of Participants 



National Endowment for the Arts 
Participants 

Mina Benyman, Director 
Design Arts Program 

Thomas Grooms, Program Manager 
Federal Design Improvement, 
Design Arts Program 

Thomas Walton, Rapporteur/Consultant 
Professor of Architecture, Catholic University 
of America 



Department of the Treasury 
Participants 

Jane L. G. Barton, Chief Curator 
and Preservation Officer 
Curatorial and Preservation Office 

Pedro A. Porro, AIA, 

Manager of Planning and Projects 

Facilities Management Division 

John D. Robinson, Director 
Facilities Management Division 

Deborah M. Witchey 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration 



Department of the Treasury 
Observers 

Antonio Diez, Architect, 

Project Management and Space Planning 

Facilities Division 

Gary T. Engelstad, Director 
Administrative Operations Division 

Karen Mclntire 

Preservation and Conservation Office 

Paula Mohr, Curatorial Assistant 
Preservation and Conservation Office 

David M. Nummy 

Assistant Secretary for Management 

Susan B. Perella, Assistant Director 
Library and Information Services 



24